I much prefer the Superman Earth one potrayal of Metropolis Clark.He isnt potrayed as a bumbling,reeve caricature but rather as a true modern day nerd.In Earth one hes the kind of nerd that quotes Starwars,the kind youu see on Big Bang theory.But yet you can still see his desire for Justice.

The main character in Earth-One was many things but Superman he was not. The Superman i know wouldn't go into a building that is on fire, get his personal belongings and fly away. He would've put the fire out and check if somebody inside needed help.The Superman i know wouldnt act like a emo with a hood and definitely still would want to save people. Hated the fact he only became Superman because there was an alien invasion. That is completely stupid.

Strazinsky doesnt get Superman. Period. Some ideas were great and all but as a whole, that story is a complete failure, imo.

And yet Mark Waid said Clark needs to be anti-social, as a far away from people as possible in order to not attract attention. Can't u see how contradictory that is?

Where did he say this? Because it wasn't in the commentary Sage posted. He said Clark wants to go unnoticed...that's not the same as "staying far away." That, to me, just means, "blend in and be unremarkable." He can't allow himself any opportunities for a physical slip-up. That's all he meant by the "he can't help someone move on Sunday" comment. That doesn't mean he's anti-social. Just careful. He can still be friendly, social and helpful at work and with friends, just not in the physical sense. And I do agree with that. Clark Kent has no business playing basketball or any sport or physical contest that would lead him to give himself away. It's caution, nothing more. "Slightly aloof," as Waid puts it, is a long way from "anti-social."

So only somebody strong can help somebody move? That's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read. I've had helped people move many times and im not what people consider strong at all.

He can fake not being strong like he has done many times in the comics.

Blend in and be unremarkable? That means not going to parties and who abdicates of a social life? He clearly did that in Birthright. Is that relatable to readers? LOL

In fact, i think that would attract more attention than someone who is just an average joe. Isn't Birthright the same story that had a Giant Spider, Lex Luthor had Kryptonite powers in the end and was friends with Clark in childhood (That stupid idea that only survived from pre-crisis because Smallville was popular?)? Nah. Birthright got some things right(Like the ending, Clark making the decision to be a symbol) but also some things wrong, imo, hence why it isn't considered cannon.

Nah. I dont think he gets Clark Kent all that well either, is too stuck in the pre-crisis one-dimensional version of the character(Superman is real, Clark is fake) and the excuse "Because the creators said so" isn't flying with me anymore.
.
Like i said, i have yet to see an updated Clark Kent that I trully enjoy. The closest personality i can find is the one in Superman for all seasons or Secret Identity. That I can relate to. That I can understand. Even the story "Death of Clark Kent" tells how Clark is important to Superman.

So only somebody strong can help somebody move? That's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read. I've had helped people move many times and im not what people consider strong at all.

How did you get THAT from what I said? The whole point was him not voluntarily putting himself in situations that might not cause slip-ups, or cause someone to suspect that he's hiding some super-strength.

Quote:

He can fake not being strong like he has done many times in the comics.

Again, he does that all the time anyway, so why put himself in a situation that requires him to put pretend-mode on overdrive?

Quote:

Blend in and be unremarkable? That means not going to parties and who abdicates of a social life? He clearly did that in Birthright. Is that relatable to readers? LOL

You mean when they ditched him? He went to the office birthday party and then the other reporters ditched him when going out for drinks afterward because they found him dull. Lois scolded them for it, saying it wasn't a crime being shy. There's even a shot of Clark feeling bad about it, sitting at the empty table where the party was, feeling left out. He wasn't being anti-social or purposely avoiding the party at all. He wanted to be included. I think THAT is very relatable to readers. He was also still figuring out how to handle his secret identity, as I think it was shortly after that that he sent his mom a message saying the whole idea was a mistake and he was gonna leave the Daily Planet. Obviously, that didn't stick, and he figured out how to make it work. It's only at the very end that he starts being comfortable enough to banter with Lois.

Quote:

In fact, i think that would attract more attention than someone who is just an average joe. Isn't Birthright the same story that had a Giant Spider, Lex Luthor had Kryptonite powers in the end and was friends with Clark in childhood (That stupid idea that only survived from pre-crisis because Smallville was popular?)? Nah. Birthright got some things right(Like the ending, Clark making the decision to be a symbol) but also some things wrong, imo, hence why it isn't considered cannon.

The only aspect in Birthright I didn't like was the Clark/Lex prior relationship in Smallville. Unfortunately, that's in a lot of comics (including Secret Origin), and it's an aspect I've NEVER liked. Other than that, I felt like Birthright hit all the right notes. I certainly preferred that incarnation over any of the other "modern origins" I've read.

The mid to late 80's and MAN OF STEEL was the focal point of that evolution, but both Clark Kent/Superman were evolving as characters all through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. MAN OF STEEL just crystallized this evolution.

Stop lying to yourself. The idea was to make Superman a Marvel character and Byrne also wanted to turn the character into something he can write.

Quote:

He has been shown to have his issues with humanity’s actions many times…but never to actually not understand them.

That is really hair-splitting. The "Stranger in The strange land" angle was long there. Suddenly in 1986 it... disappeared. Evolution, I guess.

Just imagine you (=Superman, in case you don't get it) observe apes (=humans compared to Superman), you might have a grasp on what they do, you might be able to pretend to do the same. Still, you are different.

Quote:

Not really, no.

That's why you prefer the simple takes and not the bold ones.

Quote:

And yet what happened?

Superman remembering Krypton.

Quote:

And what is Superman’s “true self”? Where does that come from?

From his Kryptonian heritage and the upbringing of the Kents. That's who he is that is Superman. When the Kents died the only people who knew that were gone. He has always been different that's why he plays an act called "Clark Kent" when he is in the public. Yes, his "legal" name is Clark Kent, but the personality that represents him is an act.

Quote:

Except that Superman IS Clark.

"Clark Kent" is an act he pulls for various reasons. But it's very different from his real personality.

Quote:

Which would be a third of his existence as a character, and all 30 years since the modern age of comics began. It’s kind of a moot point, because your timeline is faulty. Clark Kent was hardly portrayed as “just” the disguise until 1986. The focus on Clark started to change in the late sixties, and went through the seventies and eighties. He had an actual personality and a life as Clark Kent long before Byrne's MAN OF STEEL.

Yes, but all part of an act. The disguise became something more with time, but it was still just an act. The act that took a life of its own. Yet different from who Superman is.

In 1986 they went "ah **** that, Clark Kent is what he is and Superman is what he can do he is an ordinary guy just with powers."

Quote:

Why you're using one side of human science to explain a Kryptonian is beyond me. A human being’s personality does not just come from a particular gene. A human may have traits that inform their personality, but genes do not cause us to become certain types of people in a vacuum.

There are more books than the ones you read, apparently.

Not one particular gene but a set from it. Aggression, intelligence, spirituality, friendliness, novelity seeking, depression... all heavily linked to genes. Of course you don't develop without your environment but the basic thing is still true.

Quote:

No it wasn’t.

It was an easy way to explain where his powers came from, drawn from other mythologies.

By your own admission, they were writing wish fulfilment stories.

Wish-fulfillment comes from the the subconscious and can tells us more about the human condition than scientific studies. And it can also resonate with people more than simple rational thinking.

You confuse two different things. The old Superman writers subconsciously got a lot right and weaved that into their stories. Of course, Superman being from Krypton was an idea where he got his powers from but you prove your ignorance again since the whole immigrant angle reflects Siegel and Shuster's life. It was not JUST an explanation.

And yet the idea that Superman cannot blend in with humans is a clever one. His genes are different, his brain structure might be different, he can do things no one else can do, so I reject the idea that he could have been raised like every other human.

When I say that, I mean this: the adult mild-mannered Clark Kent that works at the Daily Planet and walks the Earth is a persona. He changes his personality to hide who he is, from the different mannerisms, voice tone, even the slouching. He's attempting to be a normal human being. Is it meaningless? No, he likes being Clark Kent. Being Clark Kent allows him to take a break from being Superman. Not only that, but hit allows him to fight his fight using his skill as a reporter.

Agreed but I would not just resign "Clark Kent" to be his way to take a break, there is more about it. It's a useful tool, it's a touchstone, it's a memorial to his parents, it's his obsession, it's what he cannot really be... In some ways Clark Kent tells us a lot about Superman, yet he is not his "mild-mannered side" while "Superman" is his courageous part. That is just wrong.

Quote:

As Superman, it is my belief that he doesn't change his personality. He's not attempting to act as a normal human being. He's not pretending to be confident--he is confident. It's not a mask. And he's using his powers, not hiding them from the public.

Actually, now that I remember, there was a story in the comics in post-crisis that Lois is doing research in Smallville and the Kents, to avoid her suspicions, tell Lois that they raised Superman as Clark's brother. Does that even make sense?

You mean when they ditched him? He went to the office birthday party and then the other reporters ditched him when going out for drinks afterward because they found him dull. Lois scolded them for it, saying it wasn't a crime being shy. There's even a shot of Clark feeling bad about it, sitting at the empty table where the party was, feeling left out. He wasn't being anti-social or purposely avoiding the party at all. He wanted to be included. I think THAT is very relatable to readers.

Kind of a tangent but the moment you mention reminded me of a scene in Batman Begins when young Bruce comes home from Princeton for the hearing. When he tells Alfred he isn't going to continue his education ("I'm not heading back there at all"), Alfred asks him if it's because he didn't like it there. Bruce says: "I like it fine. They just don't feel the same way."

You've got nice similarity between Clark and Bruce both trying to fit in and be more sociable and not really succeeding in the end. Growing up, Bruce was a troubled boy because of his past and I can't imagine him opening up to anyone that easily. It would take a very patient and persistent person to slowly build up the trust between them and form a real friendship. So, I think he did try to make friends at school, they just didn't have the patience to see the real person underneath.

He was probably branded as shy and rather anti-social as a result, the same way his co-workers see Clark in Birthright because he can be distant and aloof sometimes instead of chummy and chatty, and they don't know every single thing about his private life.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce in Begins had classmates abandoning him at parties or forgeting to invite him or playing pranks on him because he was a quiet and reserved guy, basically not a "fun" guy to be around.

I feel so bad for both characters. That panel in Birthright breaks my heart.

__________________Just fourteen years ago, a boy looked deep into the void of night and told the darkness he would spend the rest of his life warring on criminals. He meant it.
He studied, he trained, he clawed his way toward becoming a man who must never again lose to evil.
Just six nights ago, he looked deep into himself and murmured, "I am ready." - Batman Chronicles #19

Stop lying to yourself. The idea was to make Superman a Marvel character and Byrne also wanted to turn the character into something he can write.

I like how you pretend that Superman was a completely static character from his creation until 1986. That's just not the case.

“Marvel character”?

Right. Because superheroes weren’t developing and changing at all for the 50 years since their creation.

The "Marvel" approach is just a slightly more mature storytelling approach to the
"soap opera" approach that comics have pretty much always been. Comics were evolving toward that point in general during the 70's and 80's.

This goes for DC's characters as well.

Quote:

That is really hair-splitting. The "Stranger in The strange land" angle was long there. Suddenly in 1986 it... disappeared. Evolution, I guess.

No, it’s not hair-splitting.

Superman may have been a physiological stranger to Earth, but he was raised from infancy by humans. The "Stranger in a Strange land" angle isn't really there to the degree you suggest.

Superman has never been so clueless that he simply cannot understand why people do things on a regular basis. He may not agree with their actions, based on the moral grounding he received from the Kents. That is not the same as not understanding humanity. If anything, he understands humanity and why humans do things better than most people do, because he himself has seen so much of it, and has such great potential to help or harm, and has been tempted to do wrong many times.

Quote:

That's why you prefer the simple takes and not the bold ones.

Don't be absurd. The take I prefer clearly isn’t the less complex of the two we’ve discussed. So how can it be "simpler"?

I'm advocating a take that allows for both possibilities, something that honors the original take on the character and the modern take. You want to limit it.

Quote:

Superman remembering Krypton.

Ok, so he remembers Krypton. What does that prove?

Quote:

From his Kryptonian heritage and the upbringing of the Kents. That's who he is that is Superman. When the Kents died the only people who knew that were gone. He has always been different that's why he plays an act called "Clark Kent" when he is in the public. Yes, his "legal" name is Clark Kent, but the personality that represents him is an act.

The "upbringing of the Kents"…yeah, that is called “Clark Kent”. No, the entire personality of Clark Kent is not an act. CERTAIN parts of it, AFTER he becomes Superman, are. But the Clark Kent who grew up with the Kents still very much exists, and is seen.

Quote:

"Clark Kent" is an act he pulls for various reasons. But it's very different from his real personality

No, “Clark Kent" is who he already was, and long before he was Superman.

Quote:

Yes, but all part of an act. The disguise became something more with time, but it was still just an act. The act that took a life of its own. Yet different from who Superman is.

How can it be an act when its who he was? Who he was raised to be?

Quote:

In 1986 they went "ah **** that, Clark Kent is what he is and Superman is what he can do he is an ordinary guy just with powers."

No one has ever, ever tried to consistently depict Clark Kent as an ordinary guy with powers.

Superman has never been an "act". Modern writers understand that Clark Kent and Superman can coexist, because they are different aspects of the same man. Which is basically what the original take was, modern writers have just approached it with more psychological depth.

Quote:

Not one particular gene but a set from it. Aggression, intelligence, spirituality, friendliness, novelity seeking, depression... all heavily linked to genes. Of course you don't develop without your environment but the basic thing is still true.

And this is my point. You can’t just say that environment and development has nothing to do with developing these aspects, or one's personality, morals, values, etc.

Quote:

Wish-fulfillment comes from the the subconscious and can tells us more about the human condition than scientific studies. And it can also resonate with people more than simple rational thinking.

Based on one type of theory. Wish fulfilmment is pretty much both conscious and subconscious in nature.

Quote:

You confuse two different things. The old Superman writers subconsciously got a lot right and weaved that into their stories. Of course, Superman being from Krypton was an idea where he got his powers from but you prove your ignorance again since the whole immigrant angle reflects Siegel and Shuster's life. It was not JUST an explanation.

I'm aware of Superman's history. Where it was influenced in the creators lives is somewhat irrelevant to its actual meaning in the mythology. Yes, there's an immigrant angle there. No, Superman being from Krypton is not just about his power explanatiuons...obviously, "just" was a figure of speech. But that is a major component of how it was originally used in the story. As an explanation for how he got his powers.

Quote:

And yet the idea that Superman cannot blend in with humans is a clever one. His genes are different, his brain structure might be different, he can do things no one else can do, so I reject the idea that he could have been raised like every other human.

He wasn't raised like every other human...and I never said he was.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

How did you get THAT from what I said? The whole point was him not voluntarily putting himself in situations that might not cause slip-ups, or cause someone to suspect that he's hiding some super-strength.

Again, he does that all the time anyway, so why put himself in a situation that requires him to put pretend-mode on overdrive?

That makes no sense to me. Superman can fake that he doesn't have powers. Helping somebody move would make him more like an ordinary being. Waid's Clark was too unreal too. He stayed away from people on purpose and hence why he was left out. He deserved to be left out because he didnt do anything through the course of his existence to change it. That's not the kind of Clark I like.

Like i said, there could still be a middle term but people tend to concentrate way more on the faking aspects.

Kal-el was Clark Kent way before becoming Superman. He had normal friends like Pete Ross, Lana and other folks from Smallville.

It ok that he fakes he doesn't have powers or is not strong. Some parts of him are definitely an act. I just hate the fact that this is taken to an extreme and he loses the person he was before becoming Superman. It's like he simply negates humanity and being in contact with humans the minute he dons the costume which is plain BS and this is a characteristic of many stories, Birthright included, unfortunately.

Like I said, a Clark like the one in Superman Secret Identity would be ideal. Someone who is a writer, has a normal job, has friends in Perry, Jimmy and Lois. Someone who is just an ordinary human being in actions, personality and psychologically.

To me, the reason why the secret identity works is because to people Superman is such a transparent person that there's no reason for them to think that he has a secret identity. It's more based on people's prejudice than him being an actor. To them, he is above humans and that is the great joke and irony.

I'm still baffled as to why people insist on one version over another.

There's absolutely a way to present a very real, fleshed out, three dimensional Clark Kent character, who, due to a dream and a desire to help others, becomes a very real, fleshed out and three dimensional Superman as a result of his upbringing and his Earth and Kryptonian heritages, who has reverence for his Kryptonian identity of Kal-El and acts accordingly, and who uses a "Metropolis Clark" personality as a disguise in his more public private life, and who is a very different, three dimensional Clark Kent in his more personal private life. There is a way to honor every aspect of the mythology. Some people just seem to insist on this black and white mentality...and its silly.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I'm still baffled as to why people insist on one version over another.

There's absolutely a way to present a very real, fleshed out, three dimensional Clark Kent character, who, due to a dream and a desire to help others, becomes a very real, fleshed out and three dimensional Superman as a result of his upbringing and his Earth and Kryptonian heritages, who has reverence for his Kryptonian identity of Kal-El and acts accordingly, and who uses a "Metropolis Clark" personality as a disguise in his more public private life, and who is a very different, three dimensional Clark Kent in his more personal private life. There is a way to honor every aspect of the mythology. Some people just seem to insist on this black and white mentality...and its silly.

Superman/Kal-El are the same person. Kal-El is his original name, as given to him by his biological parents, and Superman is Kal-El using his natural abilities to help the earthlings on the planet. Clark Kent, on the other hand, does not truly exist. Clark Kent exists only in the mind of Kal-El/Superman, his human parents, and to the humans he works with, but Clark Kent does not exist in a physical sense at all...

Clark Kent, if he did truly exist in the DC Universe, would be a regular human being... he would of been born on earth, he wouldn't be able fly, he could be killed, he could not bounce bullets off his chest, he could not bend steel in his bare hands... but... Kal-El/Superman is NOT human. Kal-El/Superman is KRYPTONIAN. that's one enormous thing that people tend to forget about this comic book character: he was never born on earth. He was born on Krypton. Clark Kent is nothing more than a disguise that Kal-El/Superman uses to walk around the earth normally without being called upon for everything... Clark Kent is the human cloak solely created by Martha and Jonathan so that Kal-El could appear to be as a human.

the interesting, but sad thing about Superman/Kal-El is that Superman/Kal-El will never be able to live a normal life. He will always be hunted, always be sought after, will always be seen as a god, and will always be hated... as long as Superman/Kal-El exists, he will never be able to live a normal life. if you havent noticed, it is Superman/Kal-El that is threatened, not Clark Kent, when the thought of an enemy learning that Clark Kent is a fasade for Superman/Kal-El to hide in plain sight.

Clark Kent is the secret identity... Superman is not.
Clark Kent is the disguise... Superman is not.

the only way that Clark Kent can truly exist is when Kal-El truly gives up his Kryptonian heritage, his Kryptonian lineage, his Kryptonian persona, and chooses to become completely mortal. Then and only then can Clark Kent truly exist, for Clark Kent is nothing more than a normal human being.

so, who is the real person, and who is the secret identity?
Kal-El/Superman is the real person.
Clark Kent is the secret identity.

__________________

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome."

Then explain all those years before Superman was even a concept in little Clark's mind? it isn't like his parents didn't know he had powers. It isn't like Clark was some figment of their imagination. They raised him every day from the moment they met him.

__________________"The Force is strong in my family. My father has. I have it. My sister has it. You have that power too."

We'll have to wait and see on what take Snyder/Goyer/Nolan ultimately went for regarding on what ends up being defined as the true persona.

Personally, in regards to the post mentioned, above, I don't think "Clark Kent" doesn't exist because of the reasons given there.

Like Christopher Reeve's character Dr. Swan had said on the show Smallville: "Humanity isn't limited to physiology (or biology)".

Just because Superman isn't human and wasn't born "Clark Kent", I don't think that it means that he's not Clark Kent.

Clark Kent is the person who grew up desiring to find his place in the world, the one who wanted to find a partner in life just like any regular person wanted to, the one that probably had his favorite football team, favorite food dish, the one who enjoyed working in journalism...

Without BOTH "Clark Kent" and "Kal-el" imho, there could be no persona of "Superman" because I believe that Superman is the creation of both personas mixed into one, since ultimately, Superman is a man of two worlds.

There have been several takes that have established that ultimately, it's the presence and existence of the persona of "Clark Kent" that helps ground the persona of Superman as well, since it was from his desires to help people from the mind of "Clark Kent" that resulted in helping to create the need for a persona like "Superman".

I like how you pretend that Superman was a completely static character from his creation until 1986. That's just not the case.

No, I didn't. I told you that the various Superman versions before Byrne were all different in many parts. Knowing that he is Kryptonian or not... Yet it was still "Superman Who Disguised As Clark Kent".

Quote:

“Marvel character”?

Right. Because superheroes weren’t developing and changing at all for the 50 years since their creation.

The "Marvel" approach is just a slightly more mature storytelling approach to the
"soap opera" approach that comics have pretty much always been. Comics were evolving toward that point in general during the 70's and 80's.

This goes for DC's characters as well.

"Marvel" approach was for older readers and a mixture of soap opera and slugfests. But not really "mature".

Yes, the got hot Marvel writer and artist John Byrne.

Why didn't they get Alan Moore?

Because they wanted the Marvel crowd.

Business is business. Hard to get?

Quote:

No, it’s not hair-splitting.

Superman may have been a physiological stranger to Earth, but he was raised from infancy by humans. The "Stranger in a Strange land" angle isn't really there to the degree you suggest.

Superman has never been so clueless that he simply cannot understand why people do things on a regular basis. He may not agree with their actions, based on the moral grounding he received from the Kents. That is not the same as not understanding humanity. If anything, he understands humanity and why humans do things better than most people do, because he himself has seen so much of it, and has such great potential to help or harm, and has been tempted to do wrong many times.

Talk around how much you want.

In the pre-crisis days the only people who really knew him were Batman and Robin. And Vartox, that's why this character was awesome back in the day (and useless these days).

Superman is humanized by the fact that his superior alien nature sets himself apart from ordinary humans.

Quote:

Don't be absurd. The take I prefer clearly isn’t the less complex of the two we’ve discussed. So how can it be "simpler"?

I'm advocating a take that allows for both possibilities, something that honors the original take on the character and the modern take. You want to limit it.

Saying that both, Superman and Clark are kinda fake and kinda real and the real person is in the middle is not very deep to me. It's pretty basic and applies to virtually every superhero.

The idea that Superman is Superman but for whatever reasons pretends to be Clark Kent has much more interesting implications.

And exactly how can "honor" both takes when they are pretty much the opposite of each other?

Quote:

Ok, so he remembers Krypton. What does that prove?

That he does.

Quote:

The "upbringing of the Kents"…yeah, that is called “Clark Kent”. No, the entire personality of Clark Kent is not an act. CERTAIN parts of it, AFTER he becomes Superman, are. But the Clark Kent who grew up with the Kents still very much exists, and is seen.

You shouldn't really confuse syntax and semantics. Yes, his legal name is Clark Kent but what is usually associated with the guy called "Clark Kent" is an act. The guy who flies around with the cape, that's his real self. Call him Superman or Nanosurfer. But "Clark Kent" is a part of Superman just like Batman is a part of Adam West.

Quote:

No, “Clark Kent" is who he already was, and long before he was Superman.

It's the name in his passport. "Clark Kent" in general is the act he and his foster parents conceived as a way to let him have a part in society. Really, the name debate is silly. Superman is called Clark Kent, yes, but what Clark Kent stands for is an act carried out by Superman. Whoa.

Quote:

How can it be an act when its who he was? Who he was raised to be?

Superman is the result of this. Not Clark Kent. Clark Kent is the act played by Superman which his parents helped to develop. His real self is Superman and that's what the Kents raised him as.

Quote:

No one has ever, ever tried to consistently depict Clark Kent as an ordinary guy with powers.

John Byrne? I guess it was just my imagination that Superman says "Now time to return to my real identity." before he turned into Clark Kent in one of his stories. He has always made it clear that his Superman is just a job.

Quote:

Superman has never been an "act". Modern writers understand that Clark Kent and Superman can coexist, because they are different aspects of the same man. Which is basically what the original take was, modern writers have just approached it with more psychological depth.

Clark Kent is an aspect of Superman as Superman for whatever reasons has to pretend he is him. But Clark Kent and Superman are so different they cannot be just fragments of his personality. Yes, everyone acts differently in different environment... but the difference between Clark and Superman is-just-too-big.

Quote:

And this is my point. You can’t just say that environment and development has nothing to do with developing these aspects, or one's personality, morals, values, etc.

Of course it's both. A plant cannot flower in a dark room 30 miles under the Earth.

But let's look at it like that: Kryptonians, in some parts of the mythos described as a "race of Superman" look human but they are more advanced, more adapted to another environment, more sophisticated society they live in... So he cannot simply be raised as a human being.

Just imagine the problems someone with an IQ of 160 has to get on well with people of an IQ around 90. Same with Superman being human. He IS superior.

To me that's pretty logical.

Quote:

Based on one type of theory. Wish fulfilmment is pretty much both conscious and subconscious in nature.

Yeah. But like I said, "my" theory of Superman works even on a more "realistic" point of view, taking biopsychological things into account.

Quote:

I'm aware of Superman's history. Where it was influenced in the creators lives is somewhat irrelevant to its actual meaning in the mythology. Yes, there's an immigrant angle there. No, Superman being from Krypton is not just about his power explanatiuons...obviously, "just" was a figure of speech. But that is a major component of how it was originally used in the story. As an explanation for how he got his powers.

Yep, but that's how Siegel deliberately or subconsciously weaved a lot of things about himself into the character: the immigrant angle, the wish-fulfillment of the nerd who is truly a Superman, being overlooked by the pretty girls, Superman being bulletproof because his father was shot by a mugger...

Then explain all those years before Superman was even a concept in little Clark's mind? it isn't like his parents didn't know he had powers. It isn't like Clark was some figment of their imagination. They raised him every day from the moment they met him.

doesn't change the fact that Clark never existed to begin with

Clark Kent is supposed to be a flesh and blood human being... and unless Kal-El gives up his powers, Kal-El will never be human, and the Clark persona will never exist.

and i really dont care about that Smallville/Byrne crap. all that "im a normal human with powers" is ridiculous... when I watched Superman as a kid, and even when i watch it today, i dont read it for Clark... I read it for SUPERMAN. Superman is the shining light for humanity in the comic book, not Clark. Superman is the hope of the future for mankind in the comic, not Clark. Superman is the character that the people of Metropolis look up to for inspiration, and is the awe-inspiring character that people of all ages read about and hope to be like, not Clark... Clark is the normal being that we all are and can't do anything about it. Superman is the person inside all of us that wants to do great things, to strive to make mankind better, and to make a positive change for this world, and when we read Superman, it is Superman, not Clark, that continues to inspire comic book readers into hoping for their own future.

Kal-El was born a Kryptonian. unless he gives up his powers, that will never change. Clark is his human cloak to fool the rest of the world into think he is a human, which is a blatant and obvious lie. There is only one thing Kal-El can do to truly become Clark Kent, but until he does that, Clark Kent will never truly exist.

__________________

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome."

We'll have to wait and see on what take Snyder/Goyer/Nolan ultimately went for regarding on what ends up being defined as the true persona.

Personally, in regards to the post mentioned, above, I don't think "Clark Kent" doesn't exist because of the reasons given there.

Like Christopher Reeve's character Dr. Swan had said on the show Smallville: "Humanity isn't limited to physiology (or biology)".

Just because Superman isn't human and wasn't born "Clark Kent", I don't think that it means that he's not Clark Kent.

Clark Kent is the person who grew up desiring to find his place in the world, the one who wanted to find a partner in life just like any regular person wanted to, the one that probably had his favorite football team, favorite food dish, the one who enjoyed working in journalism...

Without BOTH "Clark Kent" and "Kal-el" imho, there could be no persona of "Superman" because I believe that Superman is the creation of both personas mixed into one, since ultimately, Superman is a man of two worlds.

There have been several takes that have established that ultimately, it's the presence and existence of the persona of "Clark Kent" that helps ground the persona of Superman as well, since it was from his desires to help people from the mind of "Clark Kent" that resulted in helping to create the need for a persona like "Superman".

Clark Kent is supposed to be a flesh and blood human being... and unless Kal-El gives up his powers, Kal-El will never be human, and the Clark persona will never exist.

and i really dont care about that Smallville/Byrne crap. all that "im a normal human with powers" is ridiculous... when I watched Superman as a kid, and even when i watch it today, i dont read it for Clark... I read it for SUPERMAN. Superman is the shining light for humanity in the comic book, not Clark. Superman is the hope of the future for mankind in the comic, not Clark. Superman is the character that the people of Metropolis look up to for inspiration, and is the awe-inspiring character that people of all ages read about and hope to be like, not Clark... Clark is the normal being that we all are and can't do anything about it. Superman is the person inside all of us that wants to do great things, to strive to make mankind better, and to make a positive change for this world, and when we read Superman, it is Superman, not Clark, that continues to inspire comic book readers into hoping for their own future.

Kal-El was born a Kryptonian. unless he gives up his powers, that will never change. Clark is his human cloak to fool the rest of the world into think he is a human, which is a blatant and obvious lie. There is only one thing Kal-El can do to truly become Clark Kent, but until he does that, Clark Kent will never truly exist.

You're wrong. You're completely forgetting Superman is a man of 2 worlds. Biologically, Clark doesn't exist, you're right. But your definition is incomplete. Just because he cant have a human life, that doesn't mean he doesn't try or doesn't want to.

Superman wants to save people and ALSO wants to lead a normal life and Clark serves that purpose. Not just to disguise himself. Clark is Superman's connection to us and this is a very important aspect of the character.

It's incredible how many fans get this wrong and this has nothing to do with Byrne.